Immunomodulator adherence in multiple myeloma patients with lower socioeconomic status: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Poor adherence to oral chemotherapy adversely impacts clinical outcomes and escalates overall healthcare costs. Despite barriers to medication adherence, a significant gap remains in assessing adherence to oral chemotherapy among multiple myeloma (MM) patients with lower socioeconomic status. Hence, our study aims to evaluate immunomodulator adherence in MM patients at a county hospital, primarily serving underrepresented and indigent individuals with low socioeconomic status across the greater Houston area. METHODS: Inclusion criteria composed of patients diagnosed with MM, aged at least 18 years, and treated with lenalidomide or pomalidomide-two widely used immunomodulators-for a minimum of 2 months or having two or more records of dispensation between May 2019 and May 2021. Adherence was gauged using an adjusted version of the medication possession ratio (MPR). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were enrolled, yielding a mean MPR value of 88% (SD, ± 18.9). Of these, 43 patients (69.3%) demonstrated adherence with an MPR of ≥ 0.90. A significant difference was found in treatment duration between the adherent (mean 8.8 months; SD, ± 7.2) and non-adherent (mean 13.4 months; SD, ± 7.9) groups (p = 0.027). Notably, race/ethnicity demonstrated a significant difference (p = 0.048), driven by disparities in African American and Hispanic representation across adherence levels. CONCLUSION: In summary, our findings highlight race and treatment duration to be predictors of immunomodulator adherence among MM patients with lower socioeconomic status. Further research is imperative to devise and test innovative interventions aimed at enhancing medication adherence, thereby contributing to improved survival and healthcare quality in this population.

Carfilzomibe no tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário, que receberam terapia prévia / Carfilzomib in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received prior therapy

INTRODUÇÃO: O mieloma múltiplo (MM) é uma neoplasia hematológica maligna caracterizada pela proliferação descontrolada de plasmócitos alterados na medula óssea, resultando na produção aumentada de imunoglobulinas não funcional (proteína monoclonal). O acúmulo destas imunoglobulinas e a interação dos plasmócitos com outras células da medula óssea resultam em anemia, lesões ósseas, infecções, hipercalcemia, injúria renal, fadiga e dor. A incidência mundial informada pelo Globocan é de 2,2 novos casos por 100.000 habitantes em homens e 1,5/100.000 em mulheres, com ocorrência, a nível mundial, de 176 mil novos casos e 117 mil mortes em 2020. Carfilzomibe é um agente antineoplásico, inibidor de proteassoma que se liga seletiva e irreversivelmente nos sítios ativos. Tem atividade antiproliferativa e pró-apoptóticas. PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: Kyprolis® (carfilzomibe) em combinação com dexametasona é eficaz e seguro no tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário que receberam uma terapia prévia quando em comparação a bortezomibe, ciclofosfamida, dexametasona, cisplatina, doxorrubicina, doxorrubicina lipossomal, etoposídeo, melfalana, vincristina ou talidomida? EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: O demandante realizou as buscas na literatura utilizando as seguintes bases de dados: The Cochrane Library, Medline via PubMed, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), o que resultou na inclusão de 14 publicações. Na análise conduzida pela Secretaria Executiva foram consideradas 12 publicações referentes a um ensaio clínico randomizado e uma publicação de revisão sistemática. O estudo ENDEAVOR foi um ensaio clínico de fase III, multicêntrico, aberto, que incluiu 929 participantes randomizados para receber carfilzomibe+dexametasona ou bortezomibe+dexametasona. A mediana de SLP foi 18,7 meses (IC 95%, 15,6 a não estimável) no grupo que recebeu carfilzomibe comparado a 9,4 meses (IC 95%, 8,4 a 10,4) no grupo que recebeu bortezomibe, resultando em uma magnitude de benefício absoluto de 9,3 meses (HR 0,53 [IC95% 0,44 a 0,65]; p< 0,0001). A duração mediana de resposta foi 21,3 meses (IC95% 21,3 a não estimável) no grupo carfilzomibe e 10,4 meses (IC95% 9,3 a 13,8) no grupo bortezomibe. Em ambos os grupos, 98% dos participantes apresentaram eventos adversos (qualquer grau), sendo a anemia (43% versus 28%), diarreia (36,7% versus 40,6%) e febre (32,6% versus 15,4%) os eventos mais frequentes nos grupos carfilzomibe e bortezomibe, respectivamente. Os eventos adversos mais comuns grau 3 ou maior foram reportados em 81,9% dos participantes do grupo carfilzomibe (n=379) e 71,1% no grupo bortezomibe (n=324), sendo a anemia (17,3% no grupo carfilzomibe e 10,1% no grupo bortezomibe), hipertensão (14,9% versus 3,3%), trombocitopenia (12,5% versus 14,7%),os três eventos mais frequentes. Insuficiência cardíaca grau 3 ou superior, foi mais frequente no grupo carfilzomibe (6%) que no grupo bortezomibe (2%.). AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: O demandante apresentou uma análise de custo-efetividade. Na análise do cenário base, em um horizonte temporal de 30 anos, carfilzomibe acrescentou ganhos incrementais de 1,19 QALY, resultando em uma razão de custo utilidade incremental (RCEI) de R$ 195.310,00 por QALY. No cenário proposto pela Secretária-Executiva (horizonte temporal de 10 anos e valor de utilidade derivada do estudo ENDEAVOR), carfilzomibe gerou benefício de 0,63 QALY, com RCEI de R$ 365.830,00 por QALY. ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: Com o desconto apresentado pelo demandante, a incorporação de carfilzomibe ao SUS implica em custos adicionais ao sistema de saúde no montante de aproximadamente R$ 365 milhões em cinco anos. A principal limitação da análise foi a estimativa da população. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram identificadas 10 tecnologias potenciais para compor o esquema terapêutico de pacientes adultos com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário: Belantamabe mafodotin, Ciltacabtageno autoleucel, Elranatamab, Iberdomida, Idecabtagene vicleucel, Isatuximabe, nivolumabe, selinexor, teclistamab, venetoclax. Tais medicamentos são anticorpo monoclonal ligado a um antineoplásico, anticorpo biespecífico, anticorpo monoclonal, imumodulador, terapias baseadas em células T autólogas geneticamente modificadas (CAR-T), inibidor SINE, ou inibidor de Bcl-2. A maioria não possui registro na FDA, EMA ou Anvisa. CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: Os resultados sugerem eficácia e segurança do carfilzomibe na população elegível, porém, no horizonte temporal de 10 anos, com QALY < 1, RCEI de R$ 365.830,00 por QALY e impacto orçamentário de aproximadamente R$ 17 milhões no primeiro ano de incorporação e R$ 131 milhões no 5º ano da incorporação, totalizando R$ 365 milhões em cinco anos. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário presentes na 109ª Reunião Ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 08 de junho de 2022, sem nenhuma declaração de conflito de interesse, deliberaram por unanimidade, encaminhar o tema para consulta pública com recomendação preliminar desfavorável à incorporação de carfilzomibe para o tratamento de mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário no SUS. Os membros consideraram a evidência científica boa e favorável ao carfilzomibe, porém, a RCEI e o impacto orçamentário foram considerados muito altos para o tratamento de uma doença que já tem outras opções terapêuticas disponíveis no SUS. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: Entre os dias 08/07/2022 e 27/07/2022 foram recebidas 421 contribuições, sendo 152 pelo formulário para contribuições técnico-científicas e 269 pelo formulário para contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião de pacientes, familiares, amigos ou cuidadores de pacientes, profissionais de saúde ou pessoas interessadas no tema. A maioria foi a favor da incorporação de carfilzomibe no SUS (97% via formulário técnico-científico e 100%). O principal benefício apontado nas contribuições técnico-científicas foi sobre a eficácia, aumento da sobrevida e qualidade de vida, além da disponibilidade de mais uma opção terapêutica e promoção da igualdade no tratamento nos sistemas público e privado de saúde. A empresa detentora do registro do medicamento atualizou o preço do medicamento, e consequentemente os valores do impacto orçamentário e avaliação econômica. No impacto orçamentário o valor ficou em R$ 95,3 milhões em cinco anos. Nas contribuições de experiência e opinião, a totalidade dos respondentes discordou da recomendação preliminar da Conitec. No âmbito das opiniões e experiências positivas, foi mencionada a necessidade de garantir o acesso ao carfilzomibe, especialmente por representar uma alternativa para pacientes recidivados e refratários. Também foi citada a eficácia da tecnologia. Como dificuldades, destacou-se a falta de acesso pelo SUS. Em relação a outros medicamentos, foram mencionados benefícios, mas, também, a eficácia limitada no caso de pacientes recidivados. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário da Conitec, em sua 112ª Reunião Ordinária, realizada no dia 31 de agosto de 2022, deliberaram por maioria simples, recomendar a não incorporação no SUS de carfilzomibe para o tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário, que receberam terapia prévia, no SUS. Não houve apresentação de dados clínicos adicionais. Com o preço do medicamento atualizado, ainda assim não se mostrou custo-efetivo. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 765/2022. DECISÃO: Não incorporar, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, o carfilzomibe para o tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário, conforme a Portaria nº 107, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 184, seção 1, página 75, em 27 de setembro de 2022.

Application of Ultrasound in the Assessment of Oligoarticular Psoriatic Arthritis Subset: Results from Patients Treated with Apremilast.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory rheumatic disease characterized by different phenotypes in terms of joint involvement. The so-called oligoarticular pattern involves fewer than five active joints at a different time points. The evaluation of disease activity in this subset of patients is an unmet need due to the lack of specific indices able to capture modifications over time. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of musculoskeletal ultrasound to monitor the response to apremilast treatment in oligoarticular PsA patients. METHODS: We evaluated 24 oligoarticular patients (19 women, 5 men; median age 56 years, interquartile range (IQR) 19; median disease duration 5 years, IQR 5.75). All patients were assessed at baseline (T0), and after 6 (T1), 12 (T2), and 24 (T3) weeks. Clinical assessment included evaluation of 66 swollen joints and patient global health assessment. All the patients underwent ultrasound assessment of the clinically involved joints. Synovial effusion/hypertrophy and power Doppler were scored with a semi-quantitative scale (0-3). The total inflammatory score was the sum of the scores. RESULTS: We found a reduction in the ultrasound inflammatory score at all time points, with a significant improvement at 6 and 12 weeks of treatment compared with baseline: T0 median 8.5 (IQR 5.0); T1 3.5 (3.0); T2 2.0 (3.5); P = 0.01. We observed a significant reduction of patient global health assessment after 24 weeks (T0 median 50 (32.5); T3 40 (57.5); P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal ultrasound could be useful in the assessment of treatment response in PsA patients with oligoarticular subset.

Burden of Treatment-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is a complication of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment. OBJECTIVE: This real-world, retrospective study used electronic medical record (EMR) data from 3 Swedish clinics to assess the occurrence and economic burden of TIPN in patients with MM. METHODS: Eligible patients had an MM diagnosis in the Swedish Cancer Registry between 2006 and 2015 and initiated treatment during that period. Follow-up was until last EMR visit, death, or study end (April 2017). The current analyses included patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide, carfilzomib, or thalidomide at any treatment line. To discern healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with TIPN from other causes, patients with TIPN were matched with those without on baseline characteristics, treatment, and line of therapy. All analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Overall, 457 patients were included; 102 (22%) experienced TIPN. Patients experiencing TIPN during first-line treatment mostly received bortezomib-based regimens (n = 48/57 [84%]); those with TIPN during second- and third/fourth-line treatment mostly received lenalidomide/thalidomide-based regimens (19/31 [61%], 8/14 [57%], respectively). Patients with TIPN had higher HCRU/costs than those without TIPN (mean differences in hospital outpatient visits: 5.2, p = 0.0031; total costs per patient-year: EUR 17,183, p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Effective MM treatments associated with a reduced incidence of TIPN could result in decreased healthcare expenditure.

Fixed Combination Calcipotriene and Betamethasone Dipropionate (Cal/BD) Foam for Beyond-Mild Psoriasis: A Possible Alternative to Systemic Medication.

Calcipotriene 0.005% plus betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) aerosol foam is a topical agent indicated for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. While topical treatments are typically reserved for milder disease, in clinical trials with Cal/BD foam, the vast majority of patients had beyond-mild psoriasis at baseline, and multiple studies (including subgroup analyses from randomized controlled trials and other small-scale studies) have demonstrated favorable outcomes with the use of Cal/BD foam in this population. The objective of this article is to review existing data on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Cal/BD foam used in patients with beyond-mild psoriasis, either alone as topical monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy. Practical recommendations for managing beyond-mild psoriasis with Cal/BD foam are also provided. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(8): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5300.

Association of adverse events and associated cost with efficacy for approved relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma regimens: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Several new treatment options have been approved for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, associations of the efficacy of each approved regimen with adverse events (AEs) and the total cost per cycle were compared with a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed Publisher, and Web of Science were searched from January 1999 to July 2018 for phase 3 RCTs of regimens (approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) used in RRMM. The relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. The primary efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes were progression-free survival with the regimen, grade 3 to 4 AEs, and the total cost per cycle (regimen cost plus average cost of managing AEs). RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 7718 patients and evaluating 14 different regimens were identified. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were ranked highest for reducing progression (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09-0.19; SUCRA, 1) but carried the highest probability of total cost per cycle ($41,420; 95% Credible Interval [CrCl], $58,665-$78,041; SUCRA, 0.02). Panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone were the least effective and least safe (SUCRA, 0.24), whereas bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone emerged as least effective with the highest total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.33). Carfilzomib and dexamethasone emerged as the winner when this regimen was considered in terms of efficacy and safety (SUCRA, 0.61) and efficacy and total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this NMA can provide additional guidance for the decision-making process when one is choosing the most appropriate regimen for RRMM.

Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: results from a US claims analysis.

Objective: Information on treatment costs for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can be valuable for payers and providers who make treatment and formulary decisions. This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with PsA initiating apremilast or biologics.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. The study included biologic-naive patients with PsA who initiated treatment with apremilast or a biologic between 1 January 2014, and 31 December 2015. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.Results: In all, 125 biologic-naive patients initiating treatment with apremilast were matched to 245 biologic-naive patients initiating treatment with a biologic. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for apremilast vs. biologic users (43.2 vs. 36.7%; p = .2277). While persistent on treatment for up to 12 months, total healthcare costs (from all utilizations) were significantly lower among apremilast vs. biologic users ($28,130 vs. $37,093; p < .0001). Likewise, per-patient per-month costs while persistent on treatment were significantly lower among apremilast vs. biologic users whether they switched treatments ($2,455 vs. $3,497; p = .0103), remained persistent on treatment ($2,434 vs. $3,521; p < .0001), or discontinued but did not switch treatments ($2,178 vs. $2,696; p = .0082).Conclusions: Apremilast patients had significantly lower healthcare costs than biologic patients, even when they switched to a biologic, during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize PsA care while reducing healthcare costs.

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriasis in the Italian setting.

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (defined as a psoriasis area severity index [PASI] ≥ 10), who failed to respond to, had a contraindication to, or were intolerant to other systemic therapies, within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).Materials and methods: A Markov state-transition cohort model adapted to the Italian context was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients' quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for psoriasis in Italy, who would be eligible for treatment with apremilast.Results: Over 5 years, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy was dominant compared with the sequence of biologic treatments without apremilast. In addition, it is important to underline that the use of apremilast slightly increases the quality-adjusted life years gained over 5 years. Furthermore, within the budget impact analysis, the strategy including apremilast would lead to a saving of €16 million within 3 years. Savings would mainly be related to a reduction in pharmaceutical spending, hospital admissions and other drug administration-related costs.Conclusion: These models proved to be robust to variation in parameters and it suggested that the use of apremilast would lead to savings to the Italian healthcare system with potential benefits in terms of patients' quality of life.

Treatment of Medicare Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis who Cannot Afford Biologics or Apremilast.

Elderly patients are a group with a high frequency of psoriasis. Their disease burden has negative impacts on their quality of life. While there is a clear need to treat these patients, there are challenges in doing so. This work seeks to define the challenges that exist in treating elderly Medicare patients, as well as to provide treatment suggestions for providers to follow if they encounter one or more of these challenges. Providers face the following challenges when creating treatment plants for elderly patients with psoriasis: difficulty in obtaining drug coverage through Medicare, increased medical comorbidities, and polypharmacy. Providers aim for regimens that are affordable, safe, and efficacious, but it is not always clear how to achieve this combination, especially in elderly Medicare patients. This work is relevant in that it aims to explain the logistical roadblocks posed by Medicare coverage and provide solutions for commonly encountered issues in the treatment of a disabling and common disease in a high-risk population. Specifically, alternative treatment options to biologics and small-molecule inhibitors are discussed and include topical therapies, phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, and cyclosporine and for psoriatic arthritis include corticosteroids and leflunomide. The specific risks and benefits of these therapies in the elderly population are provided, allowing providers to make patient-specific decisions about optimal regimens.

The tale of lenalidomide clinical superiority over thalidomide and regulatory and cost-effectiveness issues.

In April 2017, the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA-Brazil) approved lenalidomide (LEN) for multiple myeloma (MM) and myelodysplastic syndrome. ANVISA had rejected the first application in 2010, and denied a request for reconsideration in 2012. The reason for rejection was the lack of comparative effectiveness studies proving that LEN was more effective than thalidomide (THAL), a strictly controlled drug regulated by Federal law 10.651/2003 and dispensed to patients (at no costs) through public health system units and hospitals. ANVISA unexplained retreat on the LEN approval for marketing was an unquestionable triumph of the lobbying that ensued the denial, at the forefront of which were politicians, Congress members, patient organizations and medical societies. Two randomized (phase III) trials and three observational (case-control and population-based cohort) compared the effectiveness of THAL- versus LEN-based therapies in MM. Overall, these studies showed no difference in efficacy between LEN- and THAL-based therapies. LEN caused less neuropathy, and more severe hematologic adverse effects. It is much costlier than THAL, and substitution of THAL by LEN shall raise considerably public healthcare costs in Brazil.

The tale of lenalidomide clinical superiority over thalidomide and regulatory and cost-effectiveness issues / A narrativa de que a lenalidomida é clinicamente superior à talidomida, e questões regulatórias e de custo-efetividade

Abstract In April 2017, the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA-Brazil) approved lenalidomide (LEN) for multiple myeloma (MM) and myelodysplastic syndrome. ANVISA had rejected the first application in 2010, and denied a request for reconsideration in 2012. The reason for rejection was the lack of comparative effectiveness studies proving that LEN was more effective than thalidomide (THAL), a strictly controlled drug regulated by Federal law 10.651/2003 and dispensed to patients (at no costs) through public health system units and hospitals. ANVISA unexplained retreat on the LEN approval for marketing was an unquestionable triumph of the lobbying that ensued the denial, at the forefront of which were politicians, Congress members, patient organizations and medical societies. Two randomized (phase III) trials and three observational (case-control and population-based cohort) compared the effectiveness of THAL- versus LEN-based therapies in MM. Overall, these studies showed no difference in efficacy between LEN- and THAL-based therapies. LEN caused less neuropathy, and more severe hematologic adverse effects. It is much costlier than THAL, and substitution of THAL by LEN shall raise considerably public healthcare costs in Brazil.

Resumo A Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) aprovou em abril de 2017 a lenalidomida (LEN) para o mieloma múltiplo (MM) e síndrome mielodisplásica. A ANVISA havia negado o registro em 2010, e indeferido um recurso apresentado em 2012. O motivo do indeferimento foi a falta de estudos comparativos de efetividade demonstrando que LEN era mais eficaz do que a talidomida (TAL), um medicamento rigorosamente controlado pela lei federal 10.651/2003 e dispensado gratuitamente a pacientes através de unidades de saúde e hospitais públicos. O recuo não explicado da ANVISA em relação ao registro da LEN foi um inquestionável triunfo do lobby que sucedeu a recusa inicial do registro, a frente do qual estavam políticos, membros do Congresso, associações de pacientes e sociedades médicas. Dois ensaios randomizados (fase III) e três estudos observacionais (caso-controle e coorte de base populacional) compararam a efetividade de terapias para o MM com TAL- e com LEN. Em conjunto, esses estudos mostraram que não havia diferenças quanto a eficácia de tratamentos com LEN- e aqueles com TAL. A LEN causou menos neuropatias, e efeitos adversos hematológicos mais graves. Ela é muito mais cara do que a TAL, e a substituição da TAL pela LEN aumentará muito os custos da assistência pública à saúde no Brasil.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for stem cell transplantation in China.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus low dose dexamethasone (Rd) relative to bortezomib-contained therapy (BCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for stem cell transplantation (ndMM) in China. Materials & methods: A literature review was conducted to identify appropriate evidence for developing a cost-effectiveness model comparing Rd with BCT for lifetime health outcomes and direct medical costs in Chinese ndMM patients. Results: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per gained quality-adjusted life years for Rd versus BCT was ¥49,793. The chance for Rd to be cost effective, under the cost-effectiveness thresholds of three-times the 2018 Chinese gross domestic goods per capita, was 90.8%. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of Rd relative to BCT for ndMM in Chinese patients is highly attractive.

Healthcare utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone. Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates. Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2-8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9-6.1) with pomalidomide (p = 0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322-27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412-21,874) with carfilzomib (p = 0.522). Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups. Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Treatment patterns and costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for psoriatic arthritis.

Aim: We evaluated treatment patterns and healthcare costs of initiating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment with oral apremilast versus biologics. Methods: Claims data identified biologic-naive adults with PsA who initiated either apremilast or a biologic from 2013 to 2016. Results: Medication adherence was similar at 12 months (76.9 vs 73.4%; p = 0.175) between apremilast (n = 381) and matched biologic (n = 761) patients. Apremilast users had $12,715 lower total costs per-patient-per-month (p < 0.001), largely due to outpatient pharmacy and medical costs. Conclusion: Commercially insured patients with PsA initiating apremilast had adherence similar to those initiating biologics but lower total healthcare costs.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12 months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a > 60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients' period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p = 0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12 months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p < 0.0001). Likewise, PPPM costs while persistent on therapy were significantly lower among patients initiating apremilast vs biologics, whether they switched treatments ($2,475 vs $4,422; p < 0.0001), remained persistent ($2,279 vs $3,883; p < 0.0001), or discontinued but did not switch treatments ($2,104 vs $6,294; p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.

In Vivo Assessment of the Effect of CYP1A2 Inhibition and Induction on Pomalidomide Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Subjects.

Pomalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug, and the dosage of 4 mg per day taken orally on days 1-21 of repeated 28-day cycles has been approved in the European Union and the United States to treat patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. In vitro data showed that pomalidomide is a substrate of multiple cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes and that its oxidative metabolism is mediated primarily by CYP1A2 and CYP3A4, with minor contributions from CYP2C19 and CYP2D6. The effect of CYP1A2 inhibition by fluvoxamine (a strong CYP1A2 inhibitor) and CYP1A2 induction by smoking on pomalidomide pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects has been assessed in 2 separate phase 1 open-label, single-dose studies. Following administration of a single oral dose of 4 mg pomalidomide, the plasma exposure when coadministered with fluvoxamine was 225.1% and 123.7% of that when administered alone for the total plasma exposure (AUC0-inf ) and the plasma peak exposure (Cmax ), respectively. In smokers with elevated CYP1A2 activity demonstrated by high caffeine clearance (a marker of CYP1A2 induction), the AUC0-inf was 32.3% lower, whereas the Cmax was 14.4% higher than that in nonsmokers. In addition, pomalidomide was safe and well tolerated as a single oral dose of 4 mg in healthy male smokers and nonsmokers ≥ 40 to ≤ 80 years old, and a single oral dose of 4 mg pomalidomide coadministered with multiple oral 50-mg doses of the CYP1A2 inhibitor fluvoxamine compared with pomalidomide alone was safe and well tolerated by the healthy male subjects.

Efficacy, safety, and cost of pomalidomide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost of a pomalidomide-dexamethasone regimen in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: All patients (n = 63) treated with pomalidomide-dexamethasone for RRMM in our university hospital between August 2013 and October 2015 were included. RESULTS: Pomalidomide was discontinued early due to progression (before the 4th cycle) in 17 (27%) patients. No case was discontinued for intolerance. The only independent factor that predicted early pomalidomide discontinuation was time from diagnosis to pomalidomide initiation <3 years. Overall response rate was 51% including complete response in 8%, very good partial response in 25%, and partial response in 19% patients. Thirteen (33%) patients showed stable disease. Median overall survival was 6.4 months in the 17 patients who discontinued pomalidomide early vs 26.8 months in the 14 patients with stable disease vs not achieved in the 32 responders (log-rank; P < 10-3 ). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (14%) and infections (25%). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pomalidomide-dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone was estimated at €39 911 per life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that pomalidomide-dexamethasone regimen has a long-term favorable safety-efficacy profile in RRMM patients. The survival benefit is substantial even in patients with stable disease.

Pomalidomide with Dexamethasone for Treating Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated with Lenalidomide and Bortezomib: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of an NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the manufacturer of pomalidomide (POM; Imnovid®, Celgene) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after at least two regimens including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BOR). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR) and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this submission. The ERG reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses in order to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG assessment, and NICE's subsequent decisions. The company conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing POM with comparators outlined in the NICE scope: panobinostat with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PANO + BOR + DEX), bendamustine with thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) and conventional chemotherapy (CC). The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from MM-003, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing POM + LoDEX with high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; used as a proxy for CC). Additional data from other studies were also used as nonrandomized observational data sources for the indirect treatment comparison of POM + LoDEX with BTD and PANO + BOR + DEX. Covariate or treatment switching adjustment methods were used for each comparison. The model developed in Microsoft® Excel 2010 using a semi-Markov partitioned survival structure, submitted in the original submission to NICE for TA338, was adapted for the present assessment of the cost effectiveness of POM + LoDEX. Updated evidence from the clinical-effectiveness part was used for the survival modelling of progression-free survival and overall survival. For POM + LoDEX, the patient access scheme (PAS) discount was applied to the POM price. Three separate comparisons were conducted for each comparator, each comparison using a different dataset and adjustment methods. The ERG identified and corrected some errors, and the corrected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for POM + LoDEX versus each comparator were presented: approximately £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus BTD, savings of approximately £143,000 per QALY lost versus PANO + BOR + DEX, and approximately £49,000 per QALY gained versus CC. The ERG also conducted full incremental analyses, which revealed that CC, POM + LoDEX and PANO + BOR + DEX were on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The committee's decision on the technology under analysis deemed that POM + LoDEX should be recommended as an option for treating multiple myeloma in adults at third or subsequent relapse of treatments including both LEN and BOR, contingent on the company providing POM with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Using pharmacy management systems for research: survival outcomes for lenalidomide in multiple myeloma in the clinical setting.

Background Health records can be used to measure medicine use and health outcomes. The public subsidy of lenalidomide in Australia was based on two phase III trials showing improved survival. Objective To use hospital pharmacy information management systems to determine survival outcomes for lenalidomide as a second line treatment in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Setting Five public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Method We extracted data on medicine use and survival for RRMM patients planned to start lenalidomide from pharmacy management and pathology databases. Descriptive statistical analyses (Kaplan-Meier curves) were used to calculate overall survival. Main outcome measure Overall survival. Results There were 136 patients who received at least one lenalidomide dose and 2234 cycles were ordered. The median age was 69 years and 54% were male. Two lenalidomide containing protocols were considered: 90% of patients had lenalidomide plus dexamethasone; 18% had lenalidomide plus dexamethasone with cyclophosphamide. The median starting lenalidomide dose was 20 mg (range 4.3-25 mg) on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Median time on treatment 9.4 months (range 0.5-71.7 months). Median overall survival was 45.4 months (range 12.0-70.5 months). Conclusion The median survival in our study compared favourably to clinical trials. Patients and clinicians can be reassured that outcomes in this clinical setting are as good as those observed in trials.

Subsidies for Oral Chemotherapy and Use of Immunomodulatory Drugs Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Myeloma.

Purpose The low-income subsidy (LIS) substantially lowers out-of-pocket costs for qualifying Medicare Part D beneficiaries who receive orally administered chemotherapy. We examined the association of LIS with the use of novel oral immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs; lenalidomide and thalidomide) among beneficiaries with myeloma, who can receive either orally administered or parenteral (bortezomib-based) therapy. Methods Using SEER-Medicare data, we identified Part D beneficiaries diagnosed with myeloma in 2007 to 2011. In multivariable models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, we analyzed associations between the LIS and use of IMiD-based therapy, delays between IMiD refills, and select health outcomes during the first year of therapy. Results Among 3,038 beneficiaries, 41% received first-line IMiDs. Median out-of-pocket cost for the first IMiD prescription was $3,178 for LIS nonrecipients and $3 for LIS recipients, whereas the respective median costs for the first year of therapy were $5,623 and $6, respectively. Receipt of the LIS was associated with a 32% higher (95% CI, 16% to 47%) probability of receiving IMiDs among beneficiaries age 75 to 84 years and a significantly lower risk of delays between refills in all age groups (adjusted relative risk, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92). Duration of therapy did not significantly differ between LIS recipients and nonrecipients (median, 7.6 months). Patients treated with IMiDs had significantly fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations compared with patients receiving bortezomib (without IMiDs), but 1-year overall survival and cumulative Medicare costs were similar. Conclusion Medicare beneficiaries with myeloma who do not receive LISs face a substantial financial barrier to accessing orally administered anticancer therapy, warranting urgent attention from policymakers. Limiting out-of-pocket costs for expensive anticancer drugs like the IMiDs may improve access to oral therapy for patients with myeloma.